Gasparino v. Larsen Ford, Inc., 42 A.D.2d 1047, 348 N.Y.S.2d 235 (1973)
An employer has a duty to provide a safe workplace, which extends to reasonably foreseeable uses of the premises, even if those uses are not explicitly directed by the employer.
Summary
Gasparino, a window washer, sustained injuries when he fell from a window while cleaning it at Larsen Ford. He sued Larsen Ford, alleging negligence in failing to provide a safe workplace. The key issue was whether Larsen Ford furnished the window seat as a place to work, even though it wasn’t explicitly directed. The jury found in favor of Gasperino, but the appellate division reversed. The Court of Appeals reversed the appellate division, holding that the jury could reasonably find that Larsen Ford knew the windows were being cleaned in this manner and had not provided any alternative safe method, thus establishing a breach of duty. The dissent argued that the jury’s verdict should stand because Ford had a duty to provide a safe workplace, and the evidence supported the finding that the window seat was the only available place to perform the work, with Ford’s knowledge.
Facts
Plaintiff Gasperino, a window washer, was injured while cleaning windows at Larsen Ford. The injury occurred when he fell from a window. The evidence suggested that the window seat was the only available place to perform the cleaning work.
There was evidence suggesting that Larsen Ford employees knew that the windows were being cleaned in this manner.
Larsen Ford did not provide any alternative or safe method for cleaning the windows.
Procedural History
The trial court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Gasperino. The Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s judgment. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s decision, reinstating the trial court’s verdict in favor of Gasperino.
Issue(s)
Whether Larsen Ford breached its duty to provide a safe workplace by failing to provide a safe means for cleaning the windows, given that its employees knew how the cleaning was being performed.
Holding
Yes, because the jury could reasonably find that Larsen Ford knew the windows were being cleaned in the manner they were, and that Larsen Ford had not provided any alternative safe means, thus establishing a breach of duty.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that an employer has an affirmative duty to provide employees with a safe place to work. The jury was justified in finding that the seat on the ventilating window was the only place from which this work could be done. The court emphasized that the critical question was whether Ford “furnished” this location as the place to do the work. The jury’s positive answer was well-founded on the proof that responsible employees of Ford furnished no other place or way to do the work and knew that the windows were being washed in this manner. The court distinguished this case from Borshowsky v. Altman & Co., where the complaint was dismissed because the plaintiff had been told to keep off the glass marquee, there were other safe ways to clean, and the defendant never knew the marquee was being used for that purpose. The dissent argued that the evidence supported the jury’s finding that Ford provided no other safe method and was aware of the existing practice.